Category Archives: Particularity

NY2: Pawnbrokers are “pervasively regulated” under 4A

Pawnbrokers are “pervasively regulated” for consumer protection. City of Los Angeles v. Patel is way different because that industry was not so regulated. Collateral Loanbrokers Assn. of N.Y., Inc. v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 09354, 2019 … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative search, Overbreadth, Particularity, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on NY2: Pawnbrokers are “pervasively regulated” under 4A

OH10: Fact premises had two addresses was unknown to officers; no suppression

The trial court redacted a false statement [likely a cut and paste error] from the affidavit for the search warrant and it didn’t undermine the probable cause at all. It doesn’t matter whether it was intentional or negligent because probable … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off on OH10: Fact premises had two addresses was unknown to officers; no suppression

N.D.Ga.: Even if SW was not particular enough, it wasn’t so defective or obvious that the GFE should not apply

Even if the search warrant for defendant’s cell phone was overbroad, which isn’t even decided, it was not so overbroad that the good faith exception to the exclusionary should be applied. United States v. Obie, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216350 … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Even if SW was not particular enough, it wasn’t so defective or obvious that the GFE should not apply

HI: Officer was aware house had two living units; SW didn’t specify which and search suppressed

The officer obtaining the search warrant was aware that there were two separate units in this dwelling, an upstairs and a downstairs. He also knew there were stairs and separate entrances. The upstairs was one color, and the downstairs another. … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on HI: Officer was aware house had two living units; SW didn’t specify which and search suppressed

E.D.Mich.: Broad SW for cell phone photos was reasonable because of how they’re stored

A broad search warrant for photographs on a cell phone was reasonable because that’s the only way the photos can be searched. In addition, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Hawkins, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214030 (E.D. Mich. … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Staleness | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Broad SW for cell phone photos was reasonable because of how they’re stored

AR: Prosecutor also didn’t know for a year that an HBO documentary crew was present at search; no discovery violation on SW materials

About a year after the execution of the search warrant, the parties learned that an HBO documentary crew recording Meth Storm was along for the search. Citing Layne v. Wilson and Brady, the defense sought access to the video and … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Warrant execution | Comments Off on AR: Prosecutor also didn’t know for a year that an HBO documentary crew was present at search; no discovery violation on SW materials

NY1: Def showed that multifamily use of premises was permitted, not that it was such at time of search

The warrant was sufficiently particular because the premises was apparently occupied by a single family. The city authorized it to be a multifamily dwelling, but there’s nothing at the suppression hearing that shows that it was used that way at … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on NY1: Def showed that multifamily use of premises was permitted, not that it was such at time of search

W.D.Pa.: Even if the one challenged sentence in the SW affidavit was stricken under Franks, PC would still exist

Defendant challenged one sentence in the affidavit as a Franks violation, but it doesn’t even appear to be false. Moreover, even if that sentence were stricken, there still would be probable cause, and he fails in his burden of proof. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Even if the one challenged sentence in the SW affidavit was stricken under Franks, PC would still exist

D.Ariz.: SW for law office was apparently one office with one entrance

HSI obtained a search warrant for the “law office of Marivel Cantu-Madril” which was in Suite D at the address, and her husband’s law office was in Suite E. The entrance to both offices was through the front door to … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Particularity | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: SW for law office was apparently one office with one entrance

WA: Affidavit and SW didn’t need to specify statutes of crimes under investigation when it was apparent it was murder

The search warrant of defendant’s place for trace evidence of a dead body rather than the body itself was reasonable because the police had information that the body had been burned in a fire pit. In addition, the affidavit and … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Hot pursuit, Particularity, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on WA: Affidavit and SW didn’t need to specify statutes of crimes under investigation when it was apparent it was murder

D.Kan.: Passenger’s flight from a car during a traffic stop is RS

A passenger’s flight from a car during a traffic stop is reasonable suspicion. United States v. Goines, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197656 (D. Kan. Nov. 14, 2019). The search warrant for defendant’s home was particular because it referenced Attachment B, … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Passenger’s flight from a car during a traffic stop is RS

N.D.Okla.: Particularity in computer searches depends on how SW was executed

Particularity in a computer search has to be flexible and reasonable because of the vast amount of information that is of necessity swept up. “Instead of applying rigid rules requiring particularity when seeking a warrant, the focus should be on … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Okla.: Particularity in computer searches depends on how SW was executed

N.D.Ohio & S.D.Miss.: SW including “any vehicle on the premises” is still particular

A search warrant that authorized the search of “any vehicle on the premises” was not unparticular because it allowed searches of visitor’s cars too. Plenty of cases already hold that “any vehicle on the premises” is particular. Moreover, there was … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio & S.D.Miss.: SW including “any vehicle on the premises” is still particular

IA: Failure to get ruling on state constitutional claim was waiver

Defendant barely raised the state constitutional claim below and why it should be different than the Fourth Amendment claim and in her briefing, but the issue was not decided below so it wasn’t preserved for review. State v. Lasley-Eakins, 2019 … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, State constitution | Comments Off on IA: Failure to get ruling on state constitutional claim was waiver

M.D.Pa.: Despite appearance building was multi-unit, SW was still particular because it alleged he was in control

The search warrant was sufficiently particular despite there being more than one entrance to the building and the fact there were multiple electric boxes outside. Based on what the officers knew, it was either one or all under his control. … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Despite appearance building was multi-unit, SW was still particular because it alleged he was in control

D.Nev.: Email SW limited to a date range and containing keywords was particular

Email search warrant limited to a date range and containing keywords was particular. United States v. Cariani, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177059 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2019):

Posted in E-mail, Particularity | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Email SW limited to a date range and containing keywords was particular

D.N.M.: Apt. number not required since specific location was given

The specific apartment number wasn’t given, but the physical and geographic location was, and that’s sufficient. “This description provided sufficient particularity for officers to locate the unit to be searched. Accordingly, the Court finds that the affidavit’s description of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Protective sweep | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Apt. number not required since specific location was given

W.D.N.C.: SWs are against a “place to be searched” and name of occupant not a const’l requirement

Search warrants are against the place not the person, and there is no constitutional requirement that the search warrant also name the occupant to be particular. In addition, the good faith exception applies here. United States v. Martin, 2019 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: SWs are against a “place to be searched” and name of occupant not a const’l requirement

PA: SW for entire house for activities of one living there included roommate’s separate room

“We granted discretionary review to determine whether a search warrant for an entire multi-bedroom residence shared by appellant, Dylan Scott Turpin, and his roommate, Benjamin Kato Irvin, was constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Scope of search | Comments Off on PA: SW for entire house for activities of one living there included roommate’s separate room

E.D.N.Y.: Given a 4A violation for lack of particularity, subjective good faith isn’t good enough for GFE

There was a failure of particularity in this document search warrant, which the government effectively concedes, and it falls back to the good faith exception to save it. The court concludes, however, in a long analysis, that the deterrent benefits … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Given a 4A violation for lack of particularity, subjective good faith isn’t good enough for GFE